A Buddhist Traveler

The Defense of Marriage Act: Defending Marriage from....

2010-02-21T17:13:00.001-06:00

The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA): Defending marriage from... what? The same political forces that gave us the Defense Of Marriage Act also attempted to amend the U.S. Constitution to "defend traditional marriage". During Senate hearings on the proposed Constitutional amendment, Senator Cornyn (the senior Senator from Texas and one of the leaders of the charge towards a DOMA constitutional amendment) called the anti-DOMA position "my marriage doesn't affect your marriage" a myth (scroll down the link to section titled Honesty). Interestingly, Senator Cornyn calls this a "myth" because, "...A casual attitude toward divorce and cohabitation has had serious consequences for the institution of marriage in the last 20 years. Redefining marriage in a way that reduces it to a financial and legal arrangement of adult relationships will only accelerate the deterioration of family life". (Senator Cornyn is quoting the Archbishop of Boston, Sean O'Malley.) Senator Cornyn hinges his unwavering support of DOMA on the principle that society needs stable families to raise children and without DOMA, stable families will exist in ever decreasing numbers.

Ernest Hemingway coined the phrase, "built-in automatic crap detector." Mine goes off with bells and whistles screaming as I read the reasons for support of DOMA and a DOMA Constitutional Amendment. I can not fathom on an emotional nor intellectual level how my marriage, between Alma (female) and myself (male), can be affected by anyone else's marriage. I suppose I could LET someone else's marriage affect mine. But then the responsibility would still be mine for letting the affect take place. Moreover, I would think that for an affect to take place, a predilection for the type of affect would have to be present in the first place. For instance, if I were repressing issues with my sexual orientation, then perhaps someone like Senator Larry Craig (Republican, married to a woman, three children) having sex in airport bathrooms with other men might have an adverse affect on my marriage. Or if I were simply cavalier about my marriage vows, perhaps someone like Governor Mark Sanford (Republican, married to a woman, four children) having an affair with a woman in Argentina might have an adverse affect on my marriage. However, neither of these two hypocrites, nor any of the other hypocrites of the same ilk on both sides of the political aisle, have the slightest affect on my marriage. (I use Republican examples, as that is the party beating the DOMA drum as part and parcel with their political platform.) If Alma and I were the last or only married couple on earth, I can't imagine our relationship being any different. I'm pretty sure our marriage vows did not contain the caveat, "...so long as there are other married couples around for you to emulate." A good thing our vows didn't contain that caveat since the divorce rate in this country has been hovering around 50% my whole life. Emulating other people in their marriages could have quite the adverse affect on our or any marriage...

I can find no statistical evidence that is contrary to the statement that children do well in stable families regardless of the sexual orientation of their parents. The key word? Stable. (There is a well-rounded, general article here from the Toronto Star on the subject and another from Salon.com here.) There is paranoid ranting regarding the dangers of same-sex couples raising children, of which an example can be found here, but I can find no legitimate statistical evidence supporting that paranoia.

If DOMA supporting politicians are really interested in protecting and supporting stable marriages, why are they so fixated on the sexual orientation of other people? While I could postulate that they are repressing some degree of fear regarding their own feelings, (in the extreme of this, we have the 'Senator Larry Craig' link above), I'll save following that path for another blog post. The bottom line is that the divorce rate in this country has been hovering around 50% since the 1950's, long before Bob and Bill, and Lisa and Mary began to push for legal recognition of their relationships. If DOMA supporting politicians are REALLY interested in protecting and supporting stable marriages, I can think of a law, which if passed, would actually decrease the divorce rate in this country.

Criminalize adultery.

Of course, we would probably have to lock up most of Congress. Which explains the loud and protracted blaming of "evil, gay lifestyles" destroying family values. But to actually support a law which would reduce the actions of those people in marriage which do the most to destroy the family values and stable marriages which we need to raise stable children? To actually say that society has a vested interest in the stability of marriage and therefore if you unzip your pants or raise your skirt, society is going to punish you? Oh no, we can't have that... We'll just blame the gays.

Hypocrisy is the only sin.

Christopher Dinnes
USNS Yano, T-AKR 297
Violet, LA

P.S. For any of my poly-amorous friends and readers, don't get your dander up. I define "marriage" as a blood binding contract between spouses, given before children, family, friends, society and/or whatever one perceives God to be. The terms of any other marriage contract other than my own, are not for me to judge. I feel that I have barely enough time to dedicate to what my marriage deserves, much less to be concerned about anyone else's. Which is kind of my point. If everyone focused on their own marriages and kept their respective sexual organs where they were supposed to be, the preponderance of divorces in this country would be limited to abusive situations and the need of a DOMA would rendered moot.

Sarah Palin and Flying Donkeys

2009-11-15T22:51:00.004-06:00

I have a good many friends who are deeply religious, decidedly Republican, and totally enamored of Sarah Palin.

On the first score, I can respect anyone's religious beliefs (or none). While I might think they are crazy for believing as they do, I am comforted and humbled in the knowledge that they feel the same about me.

On the second score, that's just politics. For myself, I always strive to communicate with everyone in a manner that highlights our unity and downplays our differences. This comes from my deepest held belief that there is always far more unifying us, than dividing us.

But on the third score, I am truly mystified. This is a woman who was campaigning to be the person one heartbeat away from the button that ends all Life as we know it.

Ms. Palin gave a speech on November 6th, to thousands of pro-life supporters in West Allis, Wisconson. In that speech she cited an urban legend as a "disturbing trend," claiming the Treasury Department had moved the phrase "In God We Trust" to the edge of the new presidential dollar coins.

Excuse me? This would be a SUGGESTED alteration that NEVER happened. (There was a different alteration that ultimately did happen which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President.) Ms. Palin uses this "controversy," however false, to conveniently illustrate how a tyrannical, God-destroying, secular big government (controlled by liberal Democrats one would suppose) is against humble God-fearing folk like herself and those to whom she was speaking. (This urban legend Ms. Palin cited most likely originated with a 2006 story on the website WorldNetDaily.)

If one chooses to believe that our government is a tyrannical, God-destroying, secular beast, so be it. One has that right. I've carried myself into more war zones in defense of that right than I care to remember. But if one is going to make political hay making that point, at least take the trouble to find and present defensible facts in support of the point.

I don't let my best friends get away with repeating such patently untrue urban legends. For someone who campaigned to be Vice-President of the United States to lend her considerable political weight to validate a patently false urban legend? As my wife would so eloquently say, "When donkey's fly."

Christopher Dinnes
USNS Yano, T-AKR 297
Violet, LA

When A News Outlet Is Not

2009-10-25T20:37:00.006-05:00

Recently there has been much brouhaha regarding the Obama Administration not regarding Fox News as a news outlet. In much of the discussion from both/all sides of the issue, there seems to be an 800 lb. gorilla in the room about which few are talking. There is nothing wrong with news outlet reporters, personalities, correspondents and anchors expressing their opinions about the news they are reporting. There is nothing wrong with a news outlet hiring all their personnel, organizing and editing all their shows around a particular political and social view. There is even nothing wrong, at least legally, with naming such a concerted, narrow view as "Fair and Balanced". Opinions and news reporting are concepts that are almost impossible to separate. All of us of a certain age remember the day Walter Cronkite expressed an opinion against the Vietnam war. That day was undoubtedly the death knell of American support for the war effort. Some might argue that Walter Cronkite was out of line in his opinion but few would question his ability to report the news as a result of having expressed his opinion.

That which makes Fox News an opposition political outlet to the Democrat Party and the Obama Whitehouse rather than a news channel has nothing to do with any editorial bias on their part, real or imagined. What makes Fox News an opposition political outlet rather than a news channel is that they are expending their money and resources actively organizing anti-government street protests. Example one. Example two. Example three.

THAT, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the difference.

Christopher Dinnes
USNS Yano, T-AKR 297
Violet, LA

P.S. For anyone interested, here is a very well spoken video commentary (i.e., reporting & OPINION) by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow about this 800 lb. gorilla. Regardless of whether one is a Fox News junkie or not, Ms. Maddow should not be dismissed merely because she is liberal, or gay, or works for MSNBC. She is a Rhodes Scholar. She has a degree in public policy from Stamford and her Ph.D. in political science from Lincoln College at Oxford. Regardless of what one feels about her political bent, Ms. Maddow has the intelligence and talent to make a rational and lucid argument to support her views of the news as she sees them. She deserves respect and an honest listen for those reasons alone.

Labor Day and Sacrificing Our Souls to Save Souls

2009-09-07T15:46:00.008-05:00

Many of my friends, (indeed much of America), obtain their news and views of the world solely from sources that do not offer much in the way of real perspective. Yet without a doubt, these are good and decent people, trying to live good, decent and righteous lives. If one filters all the issues that divide right and left in this country through increasingly fine filters, one will end up with one issue that has enabled so many who are good in this country to be hijacked into supporting so much that is ill in this country. That one issue is abortion; the termination of a human pregnancy by choice.

There is a fine Labor Day article here by Juan Cole, of Informed Comment. It is a long involved article and there is little need to further expound upon what he so eloquently writes. For those who do not know, anyone reading Informed Comment prior to this latest Iraq war would have been aware that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Moreover, Informed Comment readers were also aware of the almost non-existent evidence of WMD remaining in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Mentioning this is not an attempt to further beat a dead horse, but only illustrate that Informed Comment has valuable information not to be found on the Fox Network or its ilk. Today, Mr. Cole turned his attentions not on "Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion", but on Labor Day in America and the state of our "Grand Experiment".

Upon reading Mr. Cole's post, I was vividly reminded that we can not support "family values" while we export good paying working class jobs overseas. We can not support "family values" while we hamstring the labor movement in our country. While the labor movement has certainly been fraught with its share of corruption, any measure of justice for the working class in America was born from the efforts of organized labor. It is the height of hypocrisy to decry the breakdown in family values while at the same time supporting politicians who have done the most to increase the proportion of the wealth held the top 1% of our population. For it is this inequitable sharing of the wealth in America that leads to an exacerbation of all the social ills that any good and decent citizen decries. For ultimately, any action that adds to the deterioration of the economic status of most Americans, adds to the deterioration of the social fabric that binds our communities and in turn ensures there is even MORE need for women to choose the abortion option.

Politicians can continue to support tax cuts for the super-rich, bailouts of the super-rich, bail-outs and wrist slapping punishments of corporate executives who steal millions (and even billions) as long as they can count on the support of those Americans who will ultimately rely on only one benchmark to decide their support of a politician..., whether or not they are anti-abortion.

Christopher Dinnes
S/S Cape May
Norfolk, VA

Profiting From Illness and Injury

2009-09-03T19:08:00.002-05:00

For most of my adult life I have felt there was something intrinsically wrong with the health care "industry" in America, despite always having had virtually unlimited access to the very best health care this country has to offer. The whole idea of a profit driven health care "industry" I find morally offensive. Certainly health care workers deserve to earn a very good living. Certainly hospitals must be able to provide for their staff, equipment, mortgage payments, capital improvements, lights, water, landscaping, etc., etc., etc. But when hospitals, HMO's, and insurance companies are beholden to stockholders to show a profit, when investors buy shares of a hospital corporation or medical insurance provider hoping for a return on their investment, essentially this means investors are hoping to profit from illness and injury.

Profiting from illness and injury? Profiting from the crisis, struggles and even deaths of real people? To be very clear, this is not commentary regarding earning a living helping people through their challenges, but rather commentary on the concept of investing in the health challenges of human beings. The immorality of THAT type of investment is of epic proportions.

Christopher Dinnes
S/S Cape May
Norfolk, VA

Health Care Reform and Consideration of a Lie

2009-08-10T08:06:00.002-05:00

Of the many lies and almost unconscionable distortions of reality being bandied about regarding President Obama's attempt to reform health care in our country, none is more heinous than saying that to help pay for the reform, senior citizens are to get end-of-life counseling, so insurers will not have to provide as much coverage for them at the latter stages of their lives.

Even though the AARP is endorsing health care reform, this is nothing but an attempt to incite fear of "health care reform" in that huge voting bloc that is our senior citizens.

But is this lie something that should incite fear, loathing and mistrust? I heard on the news this morning that on average, during the last year of an American's life, $80,000 is spent on hospital stays and life prolonging machines. Now, I have not fact-checked that number, nor am I sure that one really could, as there are many subjective ways for bean-counters to count beans. (At what point can one decipher statistically that the end is imminent and attempts to stave it off create more pain than they save?) However, given the costs of health care in this country, that certainly seems like a logical number and within the bounds of reason. Given that about 2.4 million people die each year in the United States, suppose that just 10 percent decided, with counseling and support, to forgo any life prolonging procedures in hospitals when their end was imminent and chose to simply die at home, (sign me up). That's about 19 billion health care dollars that could be spent elsewhere.

Now obviously this is a grossly unscientific use of numbers and statistics and can in no way be used to consider the costs of health care and where/how health care dollars are spent. However, this does raise an interesting question. Which is the greater sin: Someone with counseling and support deciding to let their life end sooner than is medically possible, or someone having to choose between buying food or going to the doctor or dentist? The virulent rhetoric by those against health care reform regarding the former is noteworthy when juxtaposed against their almost pathological silence regarding the latter since they last killed an attempt at health care reform.

Christopher Dinnes
The Farm
Spicewood, Texas

Real, Old-Fashioned Journalism

2009-07-21T10:22:00.002-05:00

In this day and age of entertainment and declining-profit driven newspapers, with a generation weaned on texting as written communication, to read real, old-fashioned, top-quality journalism is a joy. Since such journalism is not common any longer, when it passes in front of my eyes I take note. On the links to the right, you will see Tom Englehardt's TomDispatch.com. Mr. Englehardt writes really, really well in the journalism sense of the word. However, as many of my kith would not be inclined to read a TomDispatch (as they do not share my political and social views), here is a link to a recent TomDispatch where he examines his face in the mirror and how he has reached the age where he sees his father looking back at him. The article is a pleasurable exercise in journalism and a joy to read.

Christopher Dinnes
The Farm
Spicewood, Texas

Judicial Activism is Bad... Sometimes?

2009-07-16T11:29:00.009-05:00

Those who beat the drum loudest about being against "Judicial Activism" appear to also be beating the drum loudest decrying the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the District Court's findings against the New Haven firefighters. The hypocrisy of this almost defies description. Had the Second Circuit, (Judge Sotomayor was a part of the three judge panel), overturned the District Court's finding, they (the Second Circuit) would have been "guilty" of judicial activism. The Second Circuit found that the District Court's findings adhered to the law and followed established precedent. The Supreme Court overturned the Second Circuit by setting a new standard by which this case was viewed. In other words, by engaging in a bit of judicial activism. Which is, horror though it may be to some, a necessary part of our judicial system. Otherwise we wouldn't need judges. Everything would be cut and dried, two plus two equals four, no shades of grey.

Here is a link to Senator John Cornyn's questioning of Judge Sotomayor which includes a couple of questions on the New Haven firefighter's case. It's a fair bit of reading so scroll down to the end, the questions at hand are the last two. (However, the whole line of questioning/answers is worth the read if you have the time.)

Sometimes we need to move outside of established law and precedent in order that justice be served. Established law and precedent gave us the Plessy decision, but didn't give us justice. (In 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson was the case that firmly legalized racial segregation in the U.S.) Could established law and precedent of the time found for Plessy instead? Or would that have been "judicial activism" and therefore a bad thing? Therein lies the real question that can be applied to virtually every case where "judicial activism" is decried. The answer of course depending entirely upon to whom one talks.

Christopher Dinnes
S/S Cornhusker State
Newport News, VA

The Hypocrisy of Judgement

2009-07-13T21:21:00.007-05:00

It should be obvious to the most casual observer that all judges are affected by their backgrounds, personal and political philosophies, and cultural mores. Otherwise all judges would come to the same conclusions all of the time. One descriptive phrase of who she is, spoken by the current Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor, has garnered endless bashing, led by the Fox Network, of her suitability to sit on the Supreme Court. This in spite of a long and diverse record of judicial decisions by Judge Sotomayor showing an exemplary record of applying the law even when she had every reason to be sympathetic to those whom she ruled against. (A prime example of this can be found here as described in Glenn Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory. It's a long article, with lots of links, but if you are interested in reading just how spurious are accusations of Judge Sotomayor being emotionally biased in her judicial findings, it is worth the read.)

Of note, here's a quote from Justice Alito at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing:

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country" . . . .

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

The difference between this and what Judge Sotomayor said about being a 'wise Latina woman' is what, Oh Fair And Balanced Ones?

(For those interested, here is a link to the video from Justice Alito's confirmation hearing from which the above quote is extracted.)

Christopher Dinnes
S/S Cornhusker State
Naval Station Norfolk
Virginia